(Late Stage) Capitalism's Last Stand.
At the time Tim said he supported Fortnite players who wanted to comment about politics and human rights.
Now he's saying there's no reason to bring divisive topics like politics into the game industry, and that they should be neutral venues for entertainment.
10-15 years ago another shithead (Brad Wardell) created The Gamers' Bill of Rights.WTF is Gamer rights? Are there Bookreaders rights? Maybe Moviewatcher rights? What a clown xD
And proceeded to breach the terms of it with Demigod. A game which shipped with serious technical problems.10-15 years ago another shithead (Brad Wardell) created The Gamers' Bill of Rights.
I like what Sweeney is saying to be honest. The industry should be accepting of both conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints. No need to polarize the space
Are you asking if there are are specific consumer rights that might apply to gamers and not to other consumers due to the way the industry works?WTF is Gamer rights? Are there Bookreaders rights? Maybe Moviewatcher rights? What a clown xD
I like what Sweeney is saying to be honest. The industry should be accepting of both conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints. No need to polarize the space
Yes, against Tim and EGS!
Nice memeing, bro.I like what Sweeney is saying to be honest. The industry should be accepting of both conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints. No need to polarize the space
Never a good sign. When hate filled psychopaths have your back, it's time to punch out.Pro tip Tim: "TheQuartering" agreeing with you means that you need to start to reflect over your views and morals asap.
The "gotta get my free games though" statements are the gaming equivalent of hating Wal-Mart but also shopping at them because of Rollback prices.I hope everyone telling him to fuck off doesn't have an Epic account. Because I know how much everyone likes free games at the cost of their principles.
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:He also said that gaming social media could be a place where people can and should express their political views. That's a reference to a controversy where Blizzard punished an esports player for saying Hong Kong should be free. Blizzard caught a lot of flak from players for enforcing China's censorship on that player, whereas Blizzard argued it should keep the politics out of its esports forum. At that time, Sweeney said that Fortnite players should be free to say anything they want.
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:But Sweeney did say that game company marketing departments do not need to engage in politics in the same way. Sweeney said that marketing departments can stay out of politics, but the creative people should be free to say what they want to say.
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:One of the principles that Sweeney argued for was that "gamers should be free to engage in any game with their friends anyplace they want without any unnecessary friction." ... Gamers and game vendors should be "free of lockdown."
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:Sweeney said, "And I think what we all really want and should agree is that we should accept equal access to all customers in the world, the billions of users who have participated, and give up our attempts to each trade or own a private walled garden and private monopolies, and we should really work together and recognize that you're far better off if we connect our worlds and social graphs."
Aside from the last quote, which can come off as a bit rich with the EGS exclusivity contracts Epic is dealing in, I see nothing heinous in this.
If you think creative can have enough clout to have a say in what a company should put out and how they should message the service then Sweeney has done his job is trying to mask the real intent behind his words.If he had it his way, he only wants to give the illusion that devs can engage in politics freely but not actually let them have a real say at all.Aside from the last quote, which can come off as a bit rich with the EGS exclusivity contracts Epic is dealing in, I see nothing heinous in this.
I'm with you. This is a wonderful case of people cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to manufacture outrage.
Aside from the last quote, which can come off as a bit rich with the EGS exclusivity contracts Epic is dealing in, I see nothing heinous in this.
He says creative teams can make whatever they want but their marketing teams won't market their politics. So games with female protagonists and games like Wolfenstein how would they be marketed?I'm with you. This is a wonderful case of people cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to manufacture outrage.
At the time Tim said he supported Fortnite players who wanted to comment about politics and human rights.
Now he's saying there's no reason to bring divisive topics like politics into the game industry, and that they should be neutral venues for entertainment.
He literally just said "we need to respect gamer rights and freedoms."
that's funny, because thats exactly what the poster you're quoting did - cherry pick quotes
He says creative teams can make whatever they want but their marketing teams won't market their politics. So games with female protagonists and games like Wolfenstein how would they be marketed?
Has he said something that negated those statements since then?
Like I said, he doesn't exactly live up to his own ethos, but I don't see how aspiring for games, especially ones that can be translated from one platform to another to be platform agnostic going forward is inherently bad. And no, you don't need to ask me how would you do X on platform Y, because I couldn't tell you.
There's nothing wrong with marketing including more variety for the sake of reaching a wider audience. This is something I'd expect out of some kid who's run out of ideas as to why having a PoC character in a game is a problem.But Sweeney did say that game company marketing departments do not need to engage in politics in the same way. Sweeney said that marketing departments can stay out of politics, but the creative people should be free to say what they want to say.
Is it really a dilemma?That's a marketing team's dilemma. I imagine in a perfect world, that department wouldn't have a say in what the product they're responsible for pushing looks like. If that isn't the case with a big publisher, that's on them, and certainly in those companies, both the publisher and developer are worse for it.
Is it really a dilemma?
Marketing can't push a political game so a political game either doesn't get made or gets stealth released.
IMO both of those options are not feasible for most games.specialy in the AAA industry.
I would appreciate how you justify that it's ok for a game to be silenced just because it's political
I mean, you can read do not need to as mustn't if you like.
I have zero industry experience, so I could not tell you which party is the first to push the brakes when it comes to creating or even designing a game that actually has something to say. Are you denied a Wolfenstein with a female protagonist before you even get to pitch it? Does the studio head say no to the idea when it's coming fresh from one of the producers? Does the publisher tell you "it's fine, but just make it a dude"? If anyone runs into those kinds of barriers in their workplace, I would think it to be a good time to stop there and then ask yourself if you're where you want to be. Or, at the very least, talk it out with the parties concerned. That is, if you truly and honestly care about what you're trying to communicate with your craft.
I'm with you. This is a wonderful case of people cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to manufacture outrage.
Are you asking if there are are specific consumer rights that might apply to gamers and not to other consumers due to the way the industry works?
Maybe?
You do realize Sweeney has already contradicted himself consideirng he has advertised publically how Epic will support player's free speech after Blizzard Hong Kong. How 'neutral' of him
Or does it not count because it didn't come from a marketing department PR person.
That is probably a much better way to phrase it, yes.If you said "specific consumer rights that might apply to GAMES and not to OTHER PRODUCTS" I'd be with you.
I suppose for a company trying to sell as much anything they have it's highly convenient to keep a centrist face, even if the people at the helm have leanings toward one or the other side. Or that's what I got from it. And while that might be repulsive depending on your views, it's probably sound advice directed towards business people.
Sounds like excusing bullshit to me.
Gamer rights is talking to business people?
He is spreading Gamergate talking points to business?
Tim Sweeney via Venture Beat said:... gamers should be free to engage in any game with their friends anyplace they want without any unnecessary friction.
Bingo. There is no separation...Imagine having to advertise "1984" without being political.
Or why would a publisher, taking Tim's advice, even be interested in funding and releasing "1984" in the first place?
I like what Sweeney is saying to be honest. The industry should be accepting of both conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints. No need to polarize the space
I like what Sweeney is saying to be honest. The industry should be accepting of both conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints. No need to polarize the space